MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129378370 · doi:10.1177/1060028015577445

Development of Clinical Pharmacy Key Performance Indicators for Hospital Pharmacists Using a Modified Delphi Approach

2015· article· en· W2129378370 on OpenAlex
Olavo Fernandes, Sean K Gorman, Richard S Slavik, William Semchuk, Steve Shalansky, Jean‐François Bussières, Douglas Doucette, H Bannerman, Jennifer Lo, Simone Shukla, Winnie Chan, N Benninger, Neil J. MacKinnon, Chaim M. Bell, Jeremy Slobodan, Catherine Lyder, Kent Toombs

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesMount Sinai HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteFoothills Medical CentreSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcMaster UniversityCanadian Pharmacists AssociationDalhousie UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalUniversity of SaskatchewanRegina Qu'Appelle Health RegionProvidence Health CareHorizon Health NetworkInterior HealthCapital District Health AuthorityHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelphi methodMedicineLikert scalePharmacyDelphiPharmaceutical careClinical pharmacyHospital pharmacyFamily medicineNursingPharmacy practicePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Key performance indicators (KPIs) are quantifiable measures of quality. There are no published, systematically derived clinical pharmacy KPIs (cpKPIs). OBJECTIVE: A group of hospital pharmacists aimed to develop national cpKPIs to advance clinical pharmacy practice and improve patient care. METHODS: A cpKPI working group established a cpKPI definition, 8 evidence-derived cpKPI critical activity areas, 26 candidate cpKPIs, and 11 cpKPI ideal attributes in addition to 1 overall consensus criterion. Twenty-six clinical pharmacists and hospital pharmacy leaders participated in an internet-based 3-round modified Delphi survey. Panelists rated 26 candidate cpKPIs using 11 cpKPI ideal attributes and 1 overall consensus criterion on a 9-point Likert scale. A meeting was facilitated between rounds 2 and 3 to debate the merits and wording of candidate cpKPIs. Consensus was reached if 75% or more of panelists assigned a score of 7 to 9 on the consensus criterion during the third Delphi round. RESULTS: All panelists completed the 3 Delphi rounds, and 25/26 (96%) attended the meeting. Eight candidate cpKPIs met the consensus definition: (1) performing admission medication reconciliation (including best-possible medication history), (2) participating in interprofessional patient care rounds, (3) completing pharmaceutical care plans, (4) resolving drug therapy problems, (5) providing in-person disease and medication education to patients, (6) providing discharge patient medication education, (7) performing discharge medication reconciliation, and (8) providing bundled, proactive direct patient care activities. CONCLUSIONS: A Delphi panel of hospital pharmacists was successful in determining 8 consensus cpKPIs. Measurement and assessment of these cpKPIs will serve to advance clinical pharmacy practice and improve patient care.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.681
GPT teacher head0.581
Teacher spread0.099 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it